Vision Quest - Thoth based deck

Zephyros

I've actually already answered that in post #35. The RWS is made as a general purpose deck that lends itself well to variation while the Thoth exists in order to convey a very specific set of ideas, and this goes beyond anything visual.

When we are talking about RWS "traditions" we are talking about scenic, visual decks. Even ones that don't look exactly like the RWS still belong to that tradition.

But the Thoth isn't a tradition, it is one deck that acts as an instrument of the promulgation of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's philosophy. The two are simply inseperable. There are also non-Thoth Thelemic decks, but they're a whole other kettle of fish.
 

gregory

DesertDream said:
I have a renisance themed rider although its still a rider i dont know why a theme would overwrite the original deck tradition?
Click to expand...
It kind of wouldn't - with a Waite-Smith. You can make all sorts of pictures that convey the Waite-Smith meanings with cats, dragons, statuary.... But the Thoth is something very else again. I don't in all honesty think it COULD be "themed." (Considers a Thoth of the Baroque Birds... Nope :D)
DesertDream said:
And if not Thoth what other tradition can I apply it to? Golden dawn? There is too many cards that take tradition from Thoth and wouldnt know where to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Don't try and apply any other tradition to it. Just use it. It can speak for itself. (And it has a perfectly good LWB - use that.) I can't see any cards in VQ that genuinely "take the Thoth tradition" - just a few keywords. That ISN'T enough. And I don't think GD holds up here, either.

Divvying decks up by tradition doesn't always work. But trying to learn Thoth through a deck that clearly isn't (you are getting this message from every last person here who knows their Thoth at all !) is not going to serve your tarot learning one jot. If you MUST try and look at Thoth stuff sans Uncle Al, do it with a deck that really DOES get it - Liber-T is the obvious one; Rosetta and Via are OK-ish - but you will still miss a LOT if you refuse to get into the basis of it all.

I still don't understand why you want to bother. Given that you actually seem mostly to want to get something out of your VQ rather than look at Thoth for itself - why not study the VQ in its own right. It deserves no less.
 

DesertDream

closrapexa said:
I've actually already answered that in post #35. The RWS is made as a general purpose deck that lends itself well to variation while the Thoth exists in order to convey a very specific set of ideas, and this goes beyond anything visual.

When we are talking about RWS "traditions" we are talking about scenic, visual decks. Even ones that don't look exactly like the RWS still belong to that tradition.

But the Thoth isn't a tradition, it is one deck that acts as an instrument of the promulgation of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's philosophy. The two are simply inseperable. There are also non-Thoth Thelemic decks, but they're a whole other kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

So i can apply thelema to the VQ and compare them to a non thoth thelma deck? How is a non thoth thelema deck different than thoth?
 

Zephyros

DesertDream said:
So i can apply thelema to the VQ and compare them to a non thoth thelma deck? How is a non thoth thelema deck different than thoth?
Click to expand...

Thelema is a philosophy, some might say a religion, created or received by Crowley. A Thelemic deck could be something like the Tabula Mundi, that deals with the ideas of Thelema but does not copy the Thoth's images.
 

gregory

By the way - and just for the record - Rider is a publisher. The Waite-Smith deck (often referred to as the Rider Waite - which does at least identify it but leaves poor Pamela out in the cold) is not "the Rider" deck; that title could cover a whole bunch of the other decks they have put out.... Just saying.

I can't honestly see how you could apply Thelema to the VQ, either, but to each his own. Don't forget who was the master of Thelema and who drew up the rules though... Maybe you don't want to go there. You CANNOT explore Thoth - or Thelema - without Crowley. You really need to grasp that fact.
 

DesertDream

gregory said:
It kind of wouldn't - with a Waite-Smith. You can make all sorts of pictures that convey the Waite-Smith meanings with cats, dragons, statuary.... But the Thoth is something very else again. I don't in all honesty think it COULD be "themed." (Considers a Thoth of the Baroque Birds... Nope :D)

Don't try and apply any other tradition to it. Just use it. It can speak for itself. (And it has a perfectly good LWB - use that.) I can't see any cards in VQ that genuinely "take the Thoth tradition" - just a few keywords. That ISN'T enough. And I don't think GD holds up here, either.

Divvying decks up by tradition doesn't always work. But trying to learn Thoth through a deck that clearly isn't (you are getting this message from every last person here who knows their Thoth at all !) is not going to serve your tarot learning one jot. If you MUST try and look at Thoth stuff sans Uncle Al, do it with a deck that really DOES get it - Liber-T is the obvious one; Rosetta and Via are OK-ish - but you will still miss a LOT if you refuse to get into the basis of it all.

I still don't understand why you want to bother. Given that you actually seem mostly to want to get something out of your VQ rather than look at Thoth for itself - why not study the VQ in its own right. It deserves no less.
Click to expand...


I could more easily forgo the keywords than the VQ images itself. Im more interested in the teqnique of reading thoth and what type of applications that can be made and if and how this differs from a rider. If the same astrological associates can be made with a rider then id just apply those to the cards. And if the same pips in a thoth or rider can be tied to kabbalah that VQ can id apply them to even though they dont have tje golden dawn symbols on them. Even with the lwb of the VQ which can be studied along with it, i was interested to see what further associations can go with and how to read tje symbols (cups, bowls etc by themselfs) because they are not picturesqe like the rider tradition im used too.
 

DesertDream

gregory said:
By the way - and just for the record - Rider is a publisher. The Waite-Smith deck (often referred to as the Rider Waite - which does at least identify it but leaves poor Pamela out in the cold) is not "the Rider" deck; that title could cover a whole bunch of the other decks they have put out.... Just saying.

I can't honestly see how you could apply Thelema to the VQ, either, but to each his own. Don't forget who was the master of Thelema and who drew up the rules though... Maybe you don't want to go there. You CANNOT explore Thoth - or Thelema - without Crowley. You really need to grasp that fact.
Click to expand...

Im assuming people already know what i mean when i say rider or rws in a tarot forum. Its just a way of referance.
I dont want to study thelema. I want to know how to read plain illustrated symbols because im use to the pictures in the rider deck.
 

gregory

The "technique" (it is rather more than that) of reading Thoth applies to the Thoth deck and to a degree to Liber-T, Via and Rosetta. Not to any other deck. That's just the way it is.

If you want to read unillustrated pip cards you'd be better off looking at a Marseilles deck. The Thoth pips are VERY thoroughly illustrated - you just aren't seeing that.

Astrological links are various. There is LOADS about that in other threads - it isn't something I get into - except with Thoth. The Waite-Smith cards also have astrological associations. Waite just hid them more thoroughly. He considered Crowley's astrology to be natural magic, and fairly useless; he thought most astrology at that time was "degraded" by the people who had developed horoscopes, and wanted to take it back to its "pure" form. You'd better get hold of Waite's Complete Manual of Occult Divination to see all he had to say about that.
 
Unicursal Hexagram Book of Thoth Study Group #1: Bibliographical Note